Words

Words scribbled on a wall; it's over. Pexels officially > Unsplash

As the common saying goes, words have power. Words define the way we think, and words are by nature more than just a dictionary definition. Words have tone and implications, and words carry a weight that goes beyond their face value. 

Words are also, in essence, an encapsulation of a culture and its values. Yet not all cultural values remain constant over time. And that brings up the question: should words be disposed of along with the cultural value they're tied to? To be less vague, if a word originally reflected a value that we do not endorse anymore, should we continue to use the word?

Maybe that's a question only I, as an etymology enthusiast, ask myself, but I think it has valid applications to American society and its changing values. Increasingly, especially among the younger generation, there is an awareness of words' ties to various forms of prejudice/offensiveness. 

I want to present a few examples of words' meanings radically shifting over time, as well as an analysis of each. Finally, I want to present my own thoughts on the topic.

Example #1

Take the etymonline.com etymology of the word "dumb":

"Dumb" seems to be a word that most people don't mind using for its ordinary meaning of "unintelligent", but even today the considerably more offensive sense of "person who is unable to speak" remains offensive (as it should) if you use the word to mean that. For the word "dumb", there's been not quite an evolution of the meaning, but more a branching into two separate meanings: one highly offensive, and one quite innocuous.

So is it offensive or immoral to use the word "dumb" in a non-offensive context? Historically, it's clearly been used in a derogatory way, but its most common usage today is clearly not derogatory. It's not a kind usage, but it isn't inherently derogatory to the point of being a slur. But does the existence of the derogatory usage make it wrong to use the non-derogatory usage if it's technically the same word?

Example #2

Next, I present the word "worry":

The word "worry" has probably the strangest etymology I've ever seen. Its original, significantly more violent sense has become obsolete and somehow changed into a far more peaceful meaning. Unlike the previous example, where the original meaning has become preserved but clearly derogatory while a new use has become more dominant, "worry" only has the newer meaning. 

Does using the word condone violence? Some might say the word (explicitly or not) endorses violence because of its historical origins. Most people today don't, erm, worry about it, because the original meaning is so archaic that literally no one would know about it (unless they happen to spend too much time on etymonline, like me). But your answer is highly dependent on your moral beliefs.

Example #3

Finally, the word "pig-headed":

Perhaps it's not the most common word, but it's relatively well-used, and you could easily replace it with any number of similar animal-derived words for stubbornness. Most people's morals wouldn't prevent them from using "pig-headed", although a growing number of people today consider it a symbol of human assertion of superiority over other species.

While speciesism in language, let alone speciesism in general, is a topic that I could write an entire separate post on, a different question is raised here. If a segment of the population finds a word offensive, even if you don't believe it is, should you use it? After all, the argument is that using the word "pig-headed" denigrates pigs—and it is true that most humans think of themselves as superior to pigs, and that likely factored into the creation of the word.

Conclusion

I used to have a strong duty-based ethical outlook, but now I have more elements of consequentialism. As a result, I no longer believe obsolete meanings should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to use a word. I simply don't see any use in over-analyzing whether a word is fine to use if no one is going to be offended by it. If it bothers you, don't use it, but if it doesn't bother anyone else, I don't see any reason not to. There's also a linguistic argument to be made that words are not static, so we should treat them like the ever-changing objects that they are.

Words that do have a meaning that is widely regarded as offensive are in a gray area. The word "dumb" fits into this category. If nobody in a particular conversation finds it offensive, I see no problem using it to describe something as being foolish. I wouldn't use it to describe a person anyway (I'm not a huge fan of insults), but I do see several solid arguments against a broader usage. First, the offensive meaning still exists, so it's a matter of principle. Second, is there any benefit to using it that outweighs the downsides of potentially offending or emotionally hurting someone? Personally, I don't think so.

But there's another gray area, and that's probably where Example 3 fits. The word "pig-headed" isn't offensive to most of the population, and moreover, the people who do find it offensive are offended on behalf of pigs, who obviously aren't English speakers. As a result, any consequence-based arguments against using the word—that is, arguments that using the word "pig-headed" can cause harm to pigs—are limited at best. (You could make the case that it perpetuates existing injustices, like factory farming of pigs, but that seems like a stretch, and any activist for animal conditions has much bigger fires to fight.) A more successful argument would rely on the "right thing to do", though because of my ethical views, I'd disagree with those arguments on a fundamental level.

In this particular case, it's also questionable whether the word "pig-headed" actually affirms feelings of human superiority. I believe "pig-headed" has crossed into the general parlance enough that there's limited thinking involved in using it—people simply use it as another synonym for "stubborn". (Although I will concede that I live in an urban area, and I'm sure someone in a more rural area would have different perceptions.) I'm also skeptical whether the other people who are hearing the word "pig-headed" have feelings of superiority affirmed—it feels like a stretch.

Either way, I don't think we should be paying too much attention to etymologies when deciding whether the current usage of a word goes against our values. As long as no one in the present is offended, emotionally hurt, or morally harmed in the process, I see no reason not to use a word.

Do you agree with me? Disagree? Let me know what you think in the comments section!

~Coruscant